Breaking Stereotypes is a Trek Foundation

[Dryson]

One thing that Trek has taught me, is that Trek is stereotype breaker. Some would view such breaks as good while others would view them as bad.

One stereotype that we should all expect to see in Discovery is, Michael Burnham becoming the Captain of the 32nd Century, U.S.S. Enterprise.

"Fortune favors the bold."

 

[PT109]

I'm a little confused as to what stereotype Trek would be breaking by making Michael the captain of the Enterprise, and why we should expect it to happen?

Burnham is the main character of a show named after and set aboard a starship called Discovery. Making her captain of the Enterprise would certainly break the premise of the show, but I'm not sure how that would be breaking a "stereotype" that applies to Trek in general.

 

[Nerys Myk]

One thing that Trek has taught me, is that Trek is stereotype breaker. Some would view such breaks as good while others would view them as bad.

One stereotype that we should all expect to see in Discovery is, Michael Burnham becoming the Captain of the 32nd Century, U.S.S. Enterprise.

"Fortune favors the bold."

Which stereotype is Burnham being the captain of a USS Enterprise?

 

[Tenacity]

in the 32nd century is there currently a uss enterprise? maybe I missed the reference in season three? there is a 32nd century voyager.

star trek does break it own attempts at a deliberate stereo-type.

it isn't a military, except very obviously it is

it doesn't have money, except obviously it does.

it's a utopia, except very obviously it is not.

its composed of superior human beings, except (oh my god) it isnt.

 

[StarCruiser]

If there is an Enterprise in the 32nd century - what is it? The NCC-1701-Z?

 

[Tenacity]

The NCC-1701-Z?

Because it's the best ship in the fleet,
it's the NCC 1701 ZZ Top.

 

[Shawnster]

Walker Class starships broke the stereotype of having the bridge on top of the saucer. That was a nice change and I'd like to see deck plans.

 

[Captain Crow]

One stereotype that we should all expect to see in Discovery is, Michael Burnham becoming the Captain of the 32nd Century, U.S.S. Enterprise.

Having Burnham become captain of the 32nd century Enterprise would be stereotypical fanwank.

I'm a bit tired of the Enterprise fetish and kind of hope the name has been retired by the 32nd century. At the very least if they have to name check it use the name for a station, some other type of facility, or even a shuttle craft instead of a ship.

 

[Dryson]

I'm a little confused as to what stereotype Trek would be breaking by making Michael the captain of the Enterprise, and why we should expect it to happen?

Burnham is the main character of a show named after and set aboard a starship called Discovery. Making her captain of the Enterprise would certainly break the premise of the show, but I'm not sure how that would be breaking a "stereotype" that applies to Trek in general.

The U.S.S Discovery jumped the timeline into the 32nd century, where she doesn't belong. Therefore in order to return Trek to its original timeline, not the Burnham timeline, the Enterprise must show up. For all intents and purposes, Trekiscovery IS a Mirror Universe, especially after the jump into the future.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm a bit tired of the Enterprise fetish and kind of hope the name has been retired by the 32nd century. At the very least if they have to name check it use the name for a station, some other type of facility, or even a shuttle craft instead of a ship.

Exactly this. The Enterprise is like a record breaking athlete's number being retired. The accomplishments are well recorded and time to retire the name.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm a little confused as to what stereotype Trek would be breaking by making Michael the captain of the Enterprise, and why we should expect it to happen?
Burnham is the main character of a show named after and set aboard a starship called Discovery. Making her captain of the Enterprise would certainly break the premise of the show, but I'm not sure how that would be breaking a "stereotype" that applies to Trek in general.

The U.S.S Discovery jumped the timeline into the 32nd century, where she doesn't belong. Therefore in order to return Trek to its original timeline, not the Burnham timeline, the Enterprise must show up. For all intents and purposes, Trekiscovery IS a Mirror Universe, especially after the jump into the future.

No

 

[Doom Shepherd]

I'm a little confused as to what stereotype Trek would be breaking by making Michael the captain of the Enterprise, and why we should expect it to happen?

Burnham is the main character of a show named after and set aboard a starship called Discovery. Making her captain of the Enterprise would certainly break the premise of the show, but I'm not sure how that would be breaking a "stereotype" that applies to Trek in general.

The U.S.S Discovery jumped the timeline into the 32nd century, where she doesn't belong. Therefore in order to return Trek to its original timeline, not the Burnham timeline, the Enterprise must show up. For all intents and purposes, Trekiscovery IS a Mirror Universe, especially after the jump into the future.

 

[137th Gebirg]

All Klingons beat their chests, get drunk and scream about “HONOOOOOR!!!”
All Romulans are sneaky and manipulative and have no honor as far as anyone else is concerned.
All Vulcans are obsessed with logic and look down upon humans and other races in the region because they think they’re better than everyone else.
All Cardassians are 24th century fascists.
All Starfleet Admirals are either corrupt or idiots. Or both.

Stereotype breaker, you say? That’s funny.

 

[somebuddyX]

I liked Enterprise for making the Klingons a bit more 3 dimensional compared to the dipshits on TNG, DS9 and Voyager who weren't main or recurring stars. DS9 had that Vulcan guy with PTSD who became a serial killer. DS9's Ferengi were pretty good all over the spectrum. I think the Cardassians were pretty well portrayed as different personalities, even in their first episode the young one tries to chat with O'Brien and Macet's cool head is worlds away from Dukat's narcissism and megalomania. The one in Lower Decks was a sympathetic defector. Evek was just a soldier doing his job following his bosses orders and he would do them the best he could no matter the cost. Garak was playing everyone but had compassion to his friends or at least allies. The films were pretty good at giving us villains who weren't after revenge.

 

[fireproof78]

Revenge was Kirk's business.

 

[1001001]

Revenge was Kirk's business.

And Khan’s.

And Ru’afo’s.

And Krall’s.

 

[Dryson]

And Khan’s.

And Ru’afo’s.

And Krall’s.

And Khan II and Soong, the list goes on and on.

I doubt if there will be a shortage of people in the galaxy wanting revenge on Starfleet. I can imagine there are sects of people on planets who have long forgotten Starfleet and have built their 1,000 year cult around getting revenge.

If you don't understand what stereotype being broken with Burnham being the Captain of the Enterprise, then please come my Dabo table.

 

[Worf factor9]

Revenge was Kirk's business.

And Khan’s.

And Ru’afo’s.

And Krall’s.

You forgot about Colonel Green and the rest of his crew.

 

[Tim Thomason]

And Khan II and Soong, the list goes on and on.

I doubt if there will be a shortage of people in the galaxy wanting revenge on Starfleet. I can imagine there are sects of people on planets who have long forgotten Starfleet and have built their 1,000 year cult around getting revenge.

If you don't understand what stereotype being broken with Burnham being the Captain of the Enterprise, then please come my Dabo table.

Well, Dabo it is then.

 

[Tribble Threat]

I don't think it would be stereotypical at all for the protagonist to be promoted to captain. Star Trek has never had a protagonist before, and they don't have a lot of people get promoted to captain. And as far as I know, it's not a common trope in other fiction.